§ Captain REDMOND(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether 26 cadets of the N Company were tried by the Commandant of the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and their services dispensed with by reason of their unsuitability for the duties of the Division subject to the approval of the police adviser; whether the police adviser gave his approval; and whether these cadets were subsequently returned to do duty against the advice of their commanding officer?
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood)This is a very important question, and I hope the House will permit me to read the necessarily lengthy answer:—
Five platoon commanders and section leaders of N Company of the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary were put under arrest for looting on the 13th inst. They are still under arrest. Twenty-six cadets of the same company were also alleged to be involved in looting. The Commandant of the Auxiliary Division made a preliminary investigation and reported to the Chief of Police that all of these cadets should be discharged. The Chief of Police informs me that he 930 approved this, subject to the condition that the cadets were made acquainted with the reason of their discharge, and that each of them understood it.
The Chief of Police was called suddenly to London on other business, and informs me that before leaving he wrote to the Commandant directing that the matter of the 26 cadets should await his personal investigation. The Commandant apparently did not receive this letter, or did not receive it in time. On the day following his arrival in London the Chief of Police received a message from the 26 cadets, who had arrived in London that morning, protesting against their summary dismissal without trial. On his return to Dublin, the Chief of Police sent the following telegram to the Royal Irish Constabulary recruiting office in London:
Send over the 26 N Company Cadets now in London for investigation by the Chief of Police.That investigation is now proceeding under Brigadier-General Barron, C.B., D.S.O., and Lieutenant Price, D.S.O., Assistant Inspectors-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Commander of the company has been suspended. The cadets have not been sent back to their unit, but are detained at the depot until the inquiry is completed. The Chief of Police does not consider that discharge from the Constabulary is sufficient punishment for any of these cadets if found guilty of looting, but dismissal would certainly follow any sentence given by the court-martial, which would be the tribunal before which these cadets would be tried.
§ Captain REDMONDIs it not a fact that before this investigation took place by General Crozier, the Commandant of the Auxiliary Division, he had consulted General Tudor, and that General Tudor had approved of the action he was about to take, and that after this investigation he again reported upon it and that General Tudor further approved of the further action he was about to take, namely, bringing the men to Dublin as he did, parading them and telling them of the nature of the decision that was arrived at; and whether on the third occasion after he had done this the Commandant did not acquaint General Tudor with what he had done and whether General Tudor did not for the third time approve of the action he had taken; and if that is the case what is the reason for 931 General Crozier's resignation, and why was it accepted; further, may I ask whether this course, namely, dismissal with the approval of the police officer, has not been adopted in previous similar cases, and therefore that a proper trial according to the code of the Auxiliary Force of the Royal Irish Constabulary was adopted?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI have endeavoured to answer fully most of the questions put by the hon. and gallant Members' supplementary questions, and I will endeavour to answer this. The whole question is one of discipline. It is not a fact that mere discharge or dismissal from the force is a punishment for looting or any crime outside the domestic economy of the force itself. In this particular case I can assure the House that everything will be done to bring to justice these men who are accused of a very serious crime, and no one would be more pleased than I would be to see them most summarily punished. [HON. MEMBERS: "If guilty."] Of course, if guilty.
§ Captain REDMONDWhy did General Crozier resign, and why was his resignation accepted?
§ Lord HUGH CECILI appreciate the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I would like to know whether General Crozier has made a statement as to the reason for his resignation to the Government, and whether that statement will be laid before Parliament?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI understand that General Crozier wrote a letter to General Tudor. I have not seen that letter, but I should be very pleased to get a copy of it and circulate it.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEAs General Crozier has apparently resigned his command owing to this letter having been delayed in the post, and therefore his authority was undermined by the return of these cadets, and as these cases are going to be investigated, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see General Crozier and ascertain if something cannot be done in his case as well?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI am well aware of the feeling of this House in reference to discipline in this particular force, and for months past I have endeavoured to stiffen it. We have removed officers, and 932 General Crozier's resignation was accepted by General Tudor before I knew anything about this question at all. I have had nothing whatever to do with it, and I knew nothing about it at all until it appeared in the "Times" yesterday. I must endorse the action of the Chief of the Police, and if discipline is not maintained in the force he, and he alone, would be accountable to the Chief Secretary.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASSeeing that the Chief Secretary has now stated that he knew nothing of General Crozier's resignation, is it not true that on 14th February General Tudor wrote to General Crozier intimating that these 30 men were to be suspended; that in the meantime he was going to see the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that General Crozier's resignation was not sent to General Tudor until 19th February. Therefore, in view of that fact, what is the explanation of General Tudor, who saw the right hon. Gentleman in the interval, not informing him of these circumstances?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODThat is all news to me. General Tudor never spoke to me about this matter at all, and the first knowledge I had of it was reading it in the "Times." I looked upon it then, as I do now, as a very serious conflict on a question of discipline. I am, however, clear in my view that the procedure that is now going on is the best and proper procedure in reference to this charge.
§ Mr. DEVLINWhat explanation has the right hon. Gentleman to offer for the fact that General Tudor did not inform the Irish Office and the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the resignation of General Crozier and the cause of the resignation? Why was that?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI cannot answer that.
§ Mr. FRANCEIn view of the fact that there are practically now no complaints of the conduct of the Regular troops of the Army or the Royal Irish Constabulary, does he not consider that the time has arrived when, in the interests of good government, the honour of this country, and the interests of the Government itself they should disband this particular branch of the force which produces all this trouble?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of this question.
§ Captain REDMONDIn view of the fact that the action of General Crozier throughout the whole of these proceedings was approved of and concurred in by General Tudor, what is the reason for General Tudor accepting the resignation of General Crozier?
§ At the end of questions—
§ Captain REDMONDIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply made by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the re-employment as policemen of 26 Auxiliary Cadets of N Company Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, after their services had been dispensed with by reason of their unsuitability for duty, with the approval of the police adviser, and the consequent resignation of the Commandant of the Auxiliary Division."
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat notice was evidently prepared before the Chief Secretary's answer was given, and does not fit the facts.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYOn a point of Order. May I say that if you had permitted me to put my only question on this matter I think I should have drawn an admission from the right hon. Gentleman that these men were first of all sent back—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member takes so many opportunities of putting questions that I could not foresee any particular virtue in this one.
§ Mr. DEVLINMay I point out that during the last six months this House has rung with indignant cries about charges made against the honour of military officers. We are here to defend these military officers when they do their duty, and, in pursuance of the defence of these officers who have done their duty, are we to be prevented from exposing this infamy in the House of Commons?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not appear to me to raise any point of Order.